Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • So I've been piddling around with the equation bocijn found, using 10% relative humidity


    Come on Kirk... You can't just go around plucking numbers out of your backside. You are supposed to be a proper scientist, remember?


    The average daily relative humidity in Hokkaido in May is 79%


    http://www.myweather2.com/City-Town/Japan/NayoroOnHokkaido/climate-profile.aspx?month=3

  • Now I'm not saying everyone does this, a good scientist will try hard not to, and we can see signs of that in the multiple Lugano checks. But here we know that Levi - who of these profs is the one responsible for the emissivity mistake that provides the inflated COP > 1, has been so not careful. When he was asked to check the error he still claimed there was none. And, as TC and others have shown, that one error is not detected by any of the Lugano checks, because of the various poor methodologies that prevented the dummy test from acting as a control, or even as a test of the emissivity method. This is fact, and I'll lead you through the technical details if you like. If you think otherwise i'd request that you back up your comments with technical detail.


    So, prof from a prestigious European university or no, whether it fits your world-view or no, Levi in this specific matter suffers this specific (human) problem. He is too wedded to his own ideas and therefore does not critique them or engage with critiques from others. It is bad science.

    As usual, an insult to Levi every day keeps the Scientist away.

    You and others die for the TC "report" and pretend that only you are such an Elite of scientist to have understood that all others in the world, not only Levi, but all people that have replicated Lugano have done errors.


    If you are such an Elite why aren't you all working at MIT, Stanford, Cambridge or some other great University ?

    I know that Bologna and Uppsala are not sufficiently prestigious for people like you.

    Or why not a private company, Alphabet or SpaceX may be ok for you ?

    This seems somehow a Madness, or most probably you are following an agenda.

  • In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated

    Another Insult ..... to Levi....

    We have repeated here again and again..... Levi has done a measure. And a measure in much better then a label on a box.

    Probably the pump used was tempered or modified. .... but who cares the only important thing is the actual measured value of the flux.

  • I disagree. McKubre, I and others were careful in our evaluations. We did not dismiss them. I have said repeatedly that the second set of experiments were not bad, and no major error has been found in them as far as I know. However, we raised many questions about Lugano. Legitimate, important, scientific questions, such as "what color was the reactor incandescence?" They never answered these questions. They darn well should have. An academic scientist has an obligation to answer such questions from people like McKubre, and even from me.


    I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

  • Headline: "Dennis patents his balls!"


    Wrong Dennis. You are thinking of Dennis "Craven's" balls. You are forgiven...yet again BTW, because senility is a disease.


    Thx Ahlfor. Good to see IH kicking in, although most of this transpired before the trial that was not a trial. Off hand, I do not remember this "Burgess", although his looks like a provisional from 2013 that IH bought into...like Miley's IP they bought into.


    Interesting the Dennis (no balls :) ) Letts patent. Joe Murray of IH fame...or "infamy" for the 2 remaining Rossi supporters, is on there. Dewey, can we now say that Murray is an LENR believer?

  • I didn't mean by people inside the field Jed, They will discuss and take it on its merits. It's elsewhere that the problem lies, as you know.

    The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.


  • Nice try. I suggest everyone that can to test it. Don't take my word alone. But I have made many tests.

    A pure alumina tile (easily purchased) placed on a hot plate is a fine test. Use the table from the Lugano report, reiterate away, and wonder why the tile is so much hotter than the hot plate by IR, when using the Lugano Total - Spectral Conflation Protocol...

    Visible light transparency IS NOT equivalent to IR transparency. It only takes about 1.5 mm of alumina ceramic to be totally opaque to IR transmission, depending on pore size and grain size characteristics.

    3 to 4 "COP" depends primarily on the temperature of the ceramic. The hotter, the higher the IR baloney "COP" will be.


    Good day.

  • Ahi - you're confusing and stretching matters again. We've invested in several companies who have helped us along the way and have many patents moving thru the system. Some may even turn out to be useful. The patented Burgess invention that you reference is assigned to an unrelated party. Keep searching though and hope that the R'ster doesn't stumble back into the crosshairs.

  • The Lugano authors did not answer McKubre, me, or anyone else, inside the field or outside it. In my opinion, this violates the ethics of academic science. It is also a dumb thing to do. It makes them look bad. We have to assume the answers would all be bad news; i.e., the color what orange, as shown in the photos.


    Hi Jed. My interaction with the now banned (for 2 weeks) 'Ascoli' had nothing to do with a debate on scientific ethics. The deleted post contained what could be considered - in almost any jurisdiction outside the USA - to be a criminal libel, repeated twice in the thin disguise of a question. If you had been the target of it- or indeed MY or Kirk I would have taken precisely the same action. Since Ascoli hides behind a screen-name libelling somebody on the web takes zero courage on the part of the poster, but does carry risks for other parties involved in publishing this forum.


  • ele I can appreciate that you have strong feelings in this matter. Still, where I work is not relevant to the facts here, nor am I commenting on Levi's qualifications - it was you who raised them. I offered to justify all the technical detail in my comments, including a full explanation of any aspects of TC's paper you disagree with, as well as pointing out the many others who corroborated this reading of the Lugano data. My offer to explain any detail remains open.


    I wonder if you understand that replying to factual and substantive, directly relevant comment, with personal remarks, shows only the weakness of your argument?